Entry: The Big Story... of 1973 Saturday, January 03, 2004



Well, it's taken long enough, but the New York Times and the BBC have finally found that "blood for oil" story they've been dying to print for over a year. Only... it took place in 1973.

"The United States government seriously contemplated using military force to seize oil fields in the Middle East during the Arab oil embargo 30 years ago, according to a declassified British government document made public on Thursday," reported the New York Times. Not to be outdone, the BBC chimed in, "The papers, released under the 30-year-rule, show that the British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do."  Thirty-year-old invasion plans for a war that never took place?  Stop the presses!

So, this "story" is predicated on 30-year-old contingency plans drawn up by the British government about what they (the Brits) might do just in case the oil problem in America came to blows?  Maybe someone should clue these "reporters" in... governments have entire armies of people whose job it is to draw up contingency plans to cover the most implausible scenarios, just in case.  Of course there were British plans for action in case the United States decided to invade the Middle East.  There are probably plans for action in case Elvis returns from the Crab Nebula at the head of an invasion force of intelligent bees, too.  Does that mean it's a serious possibility?  Of course not.  Keep in mind this is based on a British assesment of what the Americans might do, not actual American plans.  But just on the off-chance it ever did happen, the British government had it covered.  Just because the government makes a plan of what to do in case an event takes place, does not mean the event is or was certain to happen.  The kind of people who seriously believe that the United States was -- in 1973 or 2003 -- going to invade the Middle East to sieze its oil are the kind of wacko conspiracy theorists that would believe the plans to deal with the bee invasion mean it's coming too. If the government has plans to stop it, it must be real, right?

The New York Times and the BBC are obviously still beating the anti-war, anti-America drums as hard as they can.  But if THIS is the best they can do, I think it's safe to say the Leftists are losing their grip.

Well, I'd better go stock up on bacon, peanut butter and bananas for when Elvis gets here.

   9 comments

Virtus
January 4, 2004   06:15 AM PST
 
Funny how the newspapers make big news of this.

But the anti-terror rallies in Iraq and the pro-democracy rallies in Hong Kong get little to no publicity.

It's selective journalism
JM
January 4, 2004   06:34 AM PST
 
Yes, those anti-terrorism rallies... sad to think that a Baghdad dentist scooped every news media outlet in the world with his reports and pictures of the event!
Joe M.
January 5, 2004   02:30 PM PST
 
"are the kind of wacko conspiracy theorists that would believe"

"have finally found that 'blood for oil' story they've been dying to print"

I trust I don't have to point out the irony present in these two statements.
JM
January 5, 2004   03:45 PM PST
 
I trust you've actually taken the time to NOTICE the rampant anti-Americanism in the New York Times and the BBC. No conspiracy theories need apply there.
Joe M.
January 5, 2004   09:19 PM PST
 
Anti-American to whom?

I do enjoy these types of forums if only to see the broad range of thoughts on any given subject. But questioning one's commitment to the United States simply because they disagree with you on policy is -- at best -- sophistry of the highest form.
JM
January 5, 2004   09:43 PM PST
 
Let's dissect the phrase "anti-American". Anti means "against", doesn't it? If your position is that America is doing the wrong thing, that means you are against what we're doing, does it not? Therefore, taking an editorial stance -- as most "news" media have done -- against America is, technically, anti-American. The phrase was precisely chosen for its meaning.
Joe M.
January 6, 2004   01:11 AM PST
 
Without delving into particulars, I will concede the NYT's editorial page is very much against a majority of the administration's policies. However, most people are able to distinguish between a country and the people who are running it. Asserting that this is Anti-American is intellectually dishonest and woefully misrepresentative in my opinion. Or am I mistaken in thinking that the use of such hyperbole is meant to cast left-leaning people in a poor light?

I apologize if this is unwelcome criticism on a blog obviously dedicated to a conservative viewpoint. I like to think that at some point we can move towards more civil discourse in the political arena, rather than polarizing each and every issue for political 'gain'. In the end, nobody wins.

</soapbox>
JM
January 6, 2004   05:15 AM PST
 
Fortunately, conservativism is all about thinking for one's self and speaking one's mind. The problem is that major media outlets like the NYT and the BBC are running editorial NEWS, deliberately casting our actions in Iraq in the worst possible light, (for instance) screaming "quagmire!" as our forces raced through Iraq to take Baghdad in three weeks! I repeat that to set one's self against the actions taken by America is to be anti, or against, America. (On the Right, even those who might disagree with the reasons for our actions still hope we win!) It's NOT synonymous with traitorous or evil, though attempting to demoralise the troops in combat comes AWFULLY close.
Lucy
January 11, 2004   08:21 PM PST
 
Cav, This was just another Bush hit piece. If this is the best the looney left can do, you gotta laugh. By the way, anyone who doubts that the main stream media elites do not intentionally distort the news to make President Bush look bad, are either ignorant or blinded by the same hatred.

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments